Fair enough too. I just guess that the point of these microscope threads is to give us an oppotunity to do some "serious" critiquing (sp) of their work (even for albums we don't particularly like.) It's fun and a nice change from endless favourites lists.

Indeed

It's fun to discuss the bad and the good albums, whatever our opinions are. I found it just a bit difficult to write my opinion down for an album that I haven't listened to. The cover is really faaar more "popular" than the songs on it

Fair enough too. I just guess that the point of these microscope threads is to give us an oppotunity to do some "serious" critiquing (sp) of their work (even for albums we don't particularly like.) It's fun and a nice change from endless favourites lists.

Yes. I said that I don't care about these "experimental" records, but this doesn't mean that they shouldn't be analysed. Electronic Sound is said to be even more unlistenable. I tried to listen to it from youtube and I couldn't resist more than 1 minute!

Yes. I said that I don't care about these "experimental" records, but this doesn't mean that they shouldn't be analysed. Electronic Sound is said to be even more unlistenable. I tried to listen to it from youtube and I couldn't resist more than 1 minute!

Yeah, I know what you mean

I've tried to listen to "Electronic Sound" too.. and couldn't resist more than 30 seconds

But would we put Harrison’s Wonderwall under such scrutiny. It too was supposed to belong to a genre outside the familiar Beatle pop/rock (which was probably its point.) As its not a genre I understand or like or willing to buy I’m loathe to judge it.

"Wonderwall Music' actually doesnt bother me as I take it for what it is. I can listen to it (except for Microbes), but I would definitely put 'Electronic Sound' in the same category as Lennon's first three crap fests.

nimrod

So why a Microscope thread on Two Virgins?To prove that John Lennon's solo output was not an overall success. John-fans tend to point towards McCartney II and Paul's 80's stuff to say they don't like Pauls music.

Whooaahh....too divisive this John v Paul stuff for me bobber mate

the only comment I would make is, whatever trip John was on when he made this record, I dont think he was bothered whether it got to No 1 (although I could be wrong)

I just wanted to point out that John's solo carreer was not a complete triumph, as is often suggested.

Well, no one of the ex-Beatles had a "complete triumph" in his solo-career (who can claim so anyway ?). Personally, I've never heard or read any suggestions that John's (short) solo-career was throughout successful. Besides, I don't think it's the point of such an album-analysis to evaluate the music by sold-albums or chart-position.

Well, no one of the ex-Beatles had a "complete triumph" in his solo-career (who can claim so anyway ?). Personally, I've never heard or read any suggestions that John's (short) solo-career was throughout successful. Besides, I don't think it's the point of such an album-analysis to evaluate the music by sold-albums or chart-position.

Snoopy

I even read in this thread alone: "but give me John's songs all the time, at least he had something to say lyrically."

Anyway, I'm putting this album under the microscope because in my opinion it's a part of John's solo carreer.

I even read in this thread alone: "but give me John's songs all the time, at least he had something to say lyrically."

Anyway, I'm putting this album under the microscope because in my opinion it's a part of John's solo carreer.

Oh, you are refering to this quote... Well, it could be from me too Well, I guess the poster just wanted to express that he enjoys more John's than Paul's songs because of the "deeper" messages of the lyrics (but I don't want to value Paul's songs or lyrics in this thread, as it's not the right place). I presume that John's songs are to him personally "a complete triumph", which is just a subjective opinion.

... and of course it's o.k. to put this album under the microscope (better a "bad" starting, than no start at all )

I even read in this thread alone: "but give me John's songs all the time, at least he had something to say lyrically."

Anyway, I'm putting this album under the microscope because in my opinion it's a part of John's solo carreer.

Yeah, I said that, but I don't think John's solo career was a complete triumph. I was just making a comparison, as I think that John's songwriting was more interesting than Paul's, while Paul was musically more ambitious but I find most of his work to be pretty silly.

It's valid analysing this album and if you want to use it to prove that John's solo career had several awful moments, I can't really argue. But as I said before, I base my general opinion on how many albums from each artist I really enjoy.

I think my favourite part of this album was hearing Ringo talk about it on Anthology. Something like when John showed him the cover "oh you've got the Times on there". One of the funniest moments in Anthology.

Logged

nimrod

Well, no one of the ex-Beatles had a "complete triumph" in his solo-career (who can claim so anyway ?). Personally, I've never heard or read any suggestions that John's (short) solo-career was throughout successful. Besides, I don't think it's the point of such an album-analysis to evaluate the music by sold-albums or chart-position.

Snoopy

Your right snoopy, collectively the fabs were monumentally fantastic, the best best in the world by miles, STELLAR.........even their poorer albums were triumphs, as solo artists they were ordinary, crappy, boring and completely uninteresting, even Johns best LP Imagine was average at best. And as for Paul, just catchy chart obsessed teen girly nonsense (he had no-one to tell him no anymore), Georges stuff was preachy self obsessed and droning and Ringo well, he's just Ringo, singing cast offs from the others.

Your right snoopy, collectively the fabs were monumentally fantastic, the best best in the world by miles, STELLAR.........even their poorer albums were triumphs, as solo artists they were ordinary, crappy, boring and completely uninteresting, even Johns best LP Imagine was average at best. And as for Paul, just catchy chart obsessed teen girly nonsense (he had no-one to tell him no anymore), Georges stuff was preachy self obsessed and droning and Ringo well, he's just Ringo, singing cast offs from the others.

Your right snoopy, collectively the fabs were monumentally fantastic, the best best in the world by miles, STELLAR.........even their poorer albums were triumphs, as solo artists they were ordinary, crappy, boring and completely uninteresting, even Johns best LP Imagine was average at best. And as for Paul, just catchy chart obsessed teen girly nonsense (he had no-one to tell him no anymore), Georges stuff was preachy self obsessed and droning and Ringo well, he's just Ringo, singing cast offs from the others.

My views entirely of course

I'd say that Imagine, Band On The Run and All Things Must Pass are better than Please Please Me, With The Beatles, Beatles For Sale and Let It Be, but I tend to agree with you, none of their solo careers was a triumph and none of their solo albums was an absolute masterpiece. I prefer John's solo career over the others just because I like his songwriting better, especially the lyrics, but his records lacked of instrumental merits.

That's some pretty harsh views on their solo careers. I'd certainly agree they were inconsistent. But I think each had their solo merits. While George might not reach the popular acclaim heights of Something and Here Comes the Sun, I do think he had some great moments in his solo career. A little too few and far between perhaps but they were there. It's harder to argue that John and Paul ever reached their Beatle heights. Cos they were pretty amazingly high heights. But it doesn't mean to me at least that there wasnt some interesting songwriting and performances going on.